I am glad to see it will support 3 screens from a single chip but i do not know if i like the idea of the center display having a higher frame rate than the side displays when playing something that is pushing the card as the way it is described it makes me think it would be possible to have a situation where the center screen has a smooth frame rate yet the side displays are stuttering.

I am glad to see it will support 3 screens from a single chip but i do not know if i like the idea of the center display having a higher frame rate than the side displays when playing something that is pushing the card as the way it is described it makes me think it would be possible to have a situation where the center screen has a smooth frame rate yet the side displays are stuttering.

I really hope that is not possible or at least easily avoidable.

Click to expand...

considering 30 FPS just to be playable and 60 to be Excellent or better

considering 30 FPS just to be playable and 60 to be Excellent or better

Click to expand...

The issue for me is i want to max out settings in DX11 games at 5040x1050 so i expect below 30fps to be a possibility.

I would assume though that it would not be done to an extent to be noticeable i just worry that if a card is pushed to its limit it may become an issue depending how it works but i have no idea, i hope the reviews will go in to some more detail on it or at least triple screen reviews.

to be honest, i dont see the purpose of these more efficient, lower quality aa algorithms. my 570 can already max any game in 1080p 3d with more than 30fps per eye while forcing 16x msaa and 2x trssaa. gk104 should be more than capable of playing any current game with 2x or maybe even 4x ssaa. theres no reason to settle for anything less than the best.

and yes, i realize that at higher resolutions, it becomes much harder to maintain playable framerates with aa enabled, but at the same time, aa becomes less and less important as resolution increases. by the time we finally get 23 inch 4k screens, aa will be completely superfluous.

The issue for me is i want to max out settings in DX11 games at 5040x1050 so i expect below 30fps to be a possibility.

I would assume though that it would not be done to an extent to be noticeable i just worry that if a card is pushed to its limit it may become an issue depending how it works but i have no idea, i hope the reviews will go in to some more detail on it or at least triple screen reviews.

Click to expand...

I think only way to overcome that is multimonitor on separate boards so they are pulling the load evenly per monitor instead of just 1 card trying to pull the frames

I think only way to overcome that is multimonitor on separate boards so they are pulling the load evenly per monitor instead of just 1 card trying to pull the frames

Click to expand...

But the only reason Nvidia could now be a viable option for me is the standardized support for more than 2 screens per single GPU card as i only want to use a single GPU for 3 screens to avoid SLI or crossfire issues.

My 6970 deals well with the job but does not have enough power so i would assume an overclocked 7970 would do it better but i am more than open to a 680 if it's suitable for my use.

I'm not quite sure i get the point of Adaptive V-Sync. Doesn't V-Sync only affect screen and framerate once framerate exceeds monitor refresh? I mean, below it doesn't even matter since screen tearing doesn't happen anyway. Or am i missing something here? The thing with laggy mouse was usually a problem of buggy V-Sync implementation and not the fault of V-Sync by itself...

I'm not quite sure i get the point of Adaptive V-Sync. Doesn't V-Sync only affect screen and framerate once framerate exceeds monitor refresh? I mean, below it doesn't even matter since screen tearing doesn't happen anyway. Or am i missing something here? The thing with laggy mouse was usually a problem of buggy V-Sync implementation and not the fault of V-Sync by itself...

Click to expand...

v-sync it depends you get locked into less then desirable frame rates if you cant consistently enough hit the desired refresh rate.
with double buffing it's what say you start off at 60fps, then it goes to 30, 20, 15 so on and so on. The big gap between 60 and 30 is the main complaint of that. Although tripplebuffering solves that so you dont lost fps just get capped. Although ionno if that adaptive vsync is something really new or just marketing jive that goes along with the new really dynamic clocks for the card.

And why would it go down in steps? Wouldn't it be simply easier to use framerate limiter so the framerate would never exceed the refresh rate? So it doesn't really affect lower framerate, it just doesn't allow it to go beyond refresh rate.

But the only reason Nvidia could now be a viable option for me is the standardized support for more than 2 screens per single GPU card as i only want to use a single GPU for 3 screens to avoid SLI or crossfire issues.

My 6970 deals well with the job but does not have enough power so i would assume an overclocked 7970 would do it better but i am more than open to a 680 if it's suitable for my use.